Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 18/693,994

Tiltable Mast

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Priority
Sep 24, 2021 — NL 2029242 +2 more
Examiner
AWAD, AMR A
Art Unit
2621
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Cobra Beheer B V
OA Round
2 (Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allowance Rate
23 granted / 65 resolved
-26.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
70
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
56.5%
+16.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 65 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 10-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fouche US patent 3840225). As to claim 1, Fouche teaches A support construction for an amusement ride (main platform 1 in fig. 1), comprising a base frame (3) for supporting the amusement ride (fig. 1), one or more support masts (telescopic mast 14, 17) connected to a mast frame (19), wherein at least one of the one or more support masts and mast frame are connected as a unity to the base frame (plate 9), and wherein the at least one support mast and mast frame are tiltable in unity around a main axis (see figs. 4-6 where the mast tilts relative to the main axis). In addition, Fouche teaches wherein the mast frame comprises a trailer (4 and show to be connected to the mast as shown in fig. 7). As to claim 10, Fouche teaches the mast frame are pivotally connected to the base, see figs 1, 7- 9 column 2, lines 23-25 and col. 3 lines 40-50. As to claim 11, see Fouche, fig 1. As to claim 17, method claim 17 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected similarly as the rejection of claim 1 above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 3-9, 14-16 and 18-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouche in view of Dean (US pat. No. 3552747). As to claim 3, Fouche does not expressly teach the support construction according to claim 1 wherein the mast frame is connected to the base frame in a hanging manner. However, Dean (figs. 4-5 and 13-14) teaches that the mast frame is connected to the base frame in a hanging manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the mast to the base in hanging manner as suggested by Dean, so as to allow easy transport. As to claim 4, Dean The support construction according to claim 3, further comprising a hook plate (8) attached to the mast frame (5) for connecting the mast frame to the base frame in the hanging manner (figure 6). As to claim 5 (Dean teaches the support construction according to claim 1, wherein the base frame and hook plate are provided with fixation members for fixing the one or more supports masts (4a, 4b) and mast frame (5) in a tilted position around the main axis; (figs. 4-5 and 13-14) As to claim 6, The support construction according to claim 5, wherein the fixation members comprise co-operating openings (figs. 4-5 and 13-14). As to claim 7, examiner takes an official notice that the support construction according to claim 4 wherein the hook plate comprises a cylindrical connection (well known in the art to make connection has cylindrical shape) As to claims 8 and 19 Dean teaches the support construction according to claim 1, further comprising a lift system configured to lift the base frame above a level (figures 34-35) As to claim 9, having reinforcement support is well known in the art (see Dean figures 6-7). As to claims 14-16, see Dean figure 1 and the abstract. As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 3-6 above Claim(s) s 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouche in view of Catlett (US patent No. 2590934). As seen above, Fouche teaches all the limitations of claims 12-13 except for having the masts comprise a plurality of modular parts and are connected for folding and/or erecting the support masts. Catlett (fig. 1-4) teaches a modular mast to support or fold the masts (col. 2, line 51 to column 3, line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Catlett’s teaching using modular structure so as to be able to easily transport and assemble the device. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to the rejection under 112(b). the amendment overcame the rejection and it has been removed. Applicant argued that Fouche failed to teach the claimed limitation “wherein the at least one support mast and mast frame are tiltable in unity around a main axis (X); and wherein the mast frame comprises a trailer.” This is respectfully not persuasive. Examiner believes that the term “comprises” is broad term. Mast 14 in Fouche shown to be connected to the trailer via shaft 15 and fluid operated cylinder 36. The dictionary meaning of the term “mast” means “a long pole or spar rising from the keel or deck of a ship and supporting the yards, booms, and rigging” according to Merriam dictionary. Other similar meaning included. In the applicant’s specification, Mast is defined as “The one or more support masts 4a, 4b are connected to a mast frame 5 as a unity (structure)”. It is clearly shown in the drawing that masts are connected to frame 5 as unity means that moving mast supports moves the frame and not as both as “solid one piece”. This is similar to the Fouche’s structure. Mast 14 of Fouche is connected to the shaft 15 which is connected to platform 1, plate 9 and a pinion 11. All these are also connected to the trailer 4. Therefore, Unitary in the way that’s shown in the current application and in Fouche are similar. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMR A AWAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7764. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Jun 22, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707000
AUGMENTED DISPLAY EXPANSION FOR A MOBILE DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12701385
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SPATIAL AUDIO METERING USING EXTENDED REALITY DEVICES
1y 3m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12689126
Electronic Device Having Antenna with Vent Structures
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12679555
SYSTEM FOR INTERACTING AT A DISTANCE WITH A POINTING MEANS OF AN HMI OF A VIEWING SYSTEM OF AN AIRCRAFT COCKPIT
1y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12667791
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INHIBITING MOVEMENT OF SHOTGUN GATE VIA COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED PROCESS
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+20.7%)
2y 11m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 65 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month